Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?

[Adam Miller]

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Take a random downstream app. (Firefox is an example, but there are many
> others.) Right now, it only needs to track a single version of python,
> or a single auth framework, even if it may be used on any desktop or any
> spin. The implication is that in some sort of future with SIG-specific
> conflicting frameworks, this downstream app maintainer now must be familiar
> with, and handle *all* of the frameworks, even though they're not
> specifcally a part of any SIG. That's sort of a rotten thing to do to
> Joe Random Maintainer.
>
> You could say that the SIG needs to then supply people to handle every
> potential downstream app, but that's also not nice, and is going to lead
> to fun coordination with updates.
<snip>

I don't think that's an issue either, I'm not proposing we change
anything such that it could cause problems. I'm saying the way things
are now works and I don't understand the desire to change it.

-AdamM

-- 
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments